Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Less than three months after his sentencing, attorneys representing Richard Allen have filed an appeal in Carroll Circuit Court, requesting that it reconsider Allen’s conviction and 130-year sentence for the 2017 murders of 14-year-old Liberty German and 13-year-old Abigail Williams.
Allen was sentenced on Dec. 20, 2024, following a nearly month-long trial in Delphi last fall.
For his appeals case, Allen is being represented by Mark Leeman of Leeman Law in Logansport, and Stacy Uliana of Uliana Law in Bargersville.
A motion to reconsider the denial of the motion to correct error was also filed on Tuesday by Jennifer Auger. She represented Allen at his trial and made a limited appearance to file the new motion, which questions the timeline laid out by the prosecution and whether exculpatory evidence was withheld.
The motion reasons that the state knew or should have known that testimony made by Brad Weber at trial saying he returned home in his van before geolocation indicators on German’s phone permanently stopped showing movement was false.
Weber was a witness for the state and testified he arrived home from work around 2:30 p.m. on Feb. 13, 2017. The state argued that German’s cell phone did not show movement after 2:32 p.m.
The state also introduced a confession allegedly made by Allen that stated he was spooked by a van, presumably Weber’s, in the area and that’s when Allen allegedly forced the girls to cross the creek where their bodies ultimately were found.
The motion argues that geolocation indicators from Weber’s phone show he did not arrive home until after 2:44 p.m., well after German’s phone stopped indicating movement.
The motion relies on the United States Supreme Court case Glossip v. Oklahoma, Case No. 24-7466, 2025 WL 594736, which was decided on last month, as support. In that case, a witness’s testimony was found to be false, and a prosecutor knowingly let it stand, according to the motion.
Auger said that, “Regardless of whether Mr. Weber thought he arrived home ‘about 2:30 p.m.,’ the State knew or should have known Mr. Weber’s testimony was false and ‘knowingly let it stand.’ The State’s refusal to correct Mr. Weber’s testimony and letting his false testimony stand violated Mr. Allen’s due process right to a fair trial.”
She argued that because of this, Allen is entitled to a new trial.
The case is Richard M. Allen v. State of Indiana, 25A-CR-00591.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.